Foreword: I gave Ric Werme permission to do this essay. I don’t have any doubt that the original Cold Fusion research was seriously flawed. That said, this recent new development using a different process is getting some interest, so let’s approach it skeptically to see what merit it has, if any. – Anthony
Cold fusion isn’t usual fare for WUWT, at best it’s not a focus here, at worst it’s sorry science, and we talk about that enough already. However, it never has died, and this week there’s news about it going commercial. Well, it won’t be available for a couple years or so, but the excitement comes from a device that takes 400 watts of electrical power in and produces 12,000 watts of heat out.
Most people regard cold fusion as a black eye on science. It’s credited with the advent of science by press release and its extraordinary claims were hard to reproduce. Yet, unlike the polywater fiasco of the 1970s, cold fusion has never been explained away and several experiments have been successfully reproduced. Neutrons, tritium, and other products kept some researchers working long after others had given up. Even muons (from Svensmark’s Chilling Stars) have been suggested as a catalyst. Everyone agrees that theoretical help would provide a lot of guidance, but for something that flies in the face of accepted theory, little help has come from that.
Grandiose claims of changing the world have been lowered to “show me something that replaces my water heater.” Attempts at scaling up the experiments that could be reproduced all failed. Even had they worked, a lot of systems used palladium. There’s not enough of that to change the world.
As media attention waned, the field stayed alive and new avenues explored. Some people active in the early days of Pons & Fleishman’s press conference are still tracking research, and research has continued around the world. There are publications and journals, and conferences and research by the US Navy. And controversy about a decision to not publish the proceedings of a recent conference.
The term “Cold Fusion” has been deprecated, as focus remains on generating heat, and heat to run a steam turbine efficiently is definitely not cold. Nor is it the 30 million degrees that “Hot Fusion” needs. The preferred terms now are LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) and CANR (Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions). I’ll call it cold fusion.
I keep a Google alert for news, and check in from time to time, and last week came across notice of a press conference about a cold fusion system that is going commercial. The reports beforehand and the reports afterward said little useful, but some details are making it out. Whatever is going on is interesting enough to pay attention to, and since WUWT has developed a good record for breaking news, it’s worth a post.
The bottom line is that Italian scientists Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi have a unit they claim takes in 400 watts of electricity and, with the assistance of nickel-hydrogen fusion, puts out 12 kilowatts of heat. Okay, that’s interesting and the power amplification doesn’t require some of the extremely careful calorimetry early experiments needed. The elements involved are affordable and if it works, things become interesting. (There are undisclosed “additives” to consider too.) The reactor is going commercial in the next few years, which may or may not mean it’s ready.
Several details have not been disclosed, but there will be a paper out on Monday. Dr. Rossi reports:
Yes, I confirm that Monday Jan 24 the Bologna University Report will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics. I repeat that everybody will be allowed to use it in every kind of publication, online, paper, written, spoken, without need of any permission. It will be not put on it the copyright.
Major caveat – the Journal Of Nuclear Physics is Rossi’s blog. Peer review is:
All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.
So it’s not like they’re getting published in Nature, Scientific American, or even a reputable journal. Still, it ought to be a welcome addition.
The mechanism involved is claimed to be fusion between nickel and hydrogen. This is a bit unusual, as the typical claims are for reactions involving deuterium (proton + one neutron) and tritium (proton + two neutrons) with the gas filtering into a palladium lattice. In this case, it’s reacting with the substrate.
Nickel has several isotopes that naturally occur, the belief is that all participate in the reactions. In http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf discusses finding copper, which has one more proton than nickel, and various isotopes that do not occur in natural nickel. It also observes that gamma radiation is not observed while the reactor was running. Comments in other articles make suggestions about why that is. Apparently they see a short burst of gamma waves when the apparatus is shutdown.
Rossi leaves several hints in his comments, e.g. instability when the pressure of the hydrogen is increased, including explosions. (The commercial unit is designed to need enough electrical power so it can be shut down reliably.)
The best summary of the calorimetry involved is by Jed Rothwell who has been involved since the early days. He notes:
The test run on January 14 lasted for 1 hour. After the first 30 minutes the outlet flow became dry steam. The outlet temperature reached 101°C. The enthalpy during the last 30 minutes can be computed very simply, based on the heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) and heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg):
Mass of water 8.8 kg
Temperature change 87°C
Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*8.8 kg = 3,216 kJ
Energy to vaporize 8.8 kg of water: 2260*8.8 = 19,888 kJ
Total: 23,107 kJ
Duration 30 minutes = 1800 seconds
Power 12,837 W, minus auxiliary power ~12 kW
There were two potential ways in which input power might have been measured incorrectly: heater power, and the hydrogen, which might have burned if air had been present in the cell.
The heater power was measured at 400 W. It could not have been much higher that this, because it is plugged into an ordinary wall socket, which cannot supply 12 kW. Even if a wall socket could supply 12 kW, the heater electric wire would burn.
During the test runs less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed. 0.1 g of hydrogen is 0.1 mole, which makes 0.05 mole of water. The heat of formation of water is 286 kJ/mole, so if the hydrogen had been burned it would have produced less than 14.3 kJ.
What should we make of all this? In a skeptical group like this, some healthy skepticism is warranted. On the other hand, the energy release is impressive and very hard to explain chemically or as physical storage in a crystal lattice. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
Chronon says:
January 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm
It looks like ‘phlogiston’ is great low energy nuclear fusion expert!
I would not claim this, but I do know a little about positron emission and annihilation, and was pointing to contradictory statements about positron annihilation and about whether gamma emission occurs while their reactor operates.
Maybe there is some new physics here. It needs to be established that “low energy nuclear fusion” exists before anyone can acquire expertise in it. It would be amazing and beneficial if it did exist – is it too good to be true?
phlogiston says:
January 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm (Edit)
I think it’s pretty well established since P&F days that something interesting is going on, that’ it appears to be fusion, that reaction products are not as expected, and that theory is lagging.
I’m not happy about a number of things I’ve heard about this device, e.g. I thought I heard that gammas weren’t emitted (but also that low energy gammas are and hence the lead shield) and a burst of gammas at shutdown (but no note on scale, time constant, etc.)
Watch and wait.
well, both fascinated and chastened by some … err, research … err, checking stuff. What science is about.
The bad news:
Maybe Rossi is innocent AND competent this time… but we have serious cause to check carefully without rushing into acceptance OR rejection. Check the data, in fact, just as Fleischman said is needed but is so seldom done.
The good news:
(1) any intelligent surfing through LENR shows this topic is very alive and well. Yes, and Fleischman is apparently in his 80’s and about to attend a conference on LENR etc in India with loads of other professors. There’s a good 1997 BBC interview with Fleischman, who put a hundred thousand pounds of his own money into the research. Read the interview to understand why. And he knew before the infamous press conference, that disaster would now result. Above all, I see very much the same kind of experiences of mainstream rejection that we all know about here.
(2) The report by Dr Giuseppe Levi of the University of Bologna looks extremely interesting. I am not concerned that various things thought by some posters to be expected are missing, so long as the heat generation works and is not just a complete fraud. I expect the normal laws of physics as known to be somewhat suspended here, in line with the fact that there has to date been difficulty in reproducing experiments – a difficulty also reported in the initial development of transistors.
Although I’m not completely skeptical about CF, I think this looks very much like a fraud.
-serious criminal history of the “inventor” Mr. Rossi
-bizzare “theoretical” concepts how the “invention” might work
-unsubstantiated and contradicting epochal claims like:
“Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea”
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2#comment-1947
see also:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19862
and
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19868
where he contradicts the above
and
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19880
where he is confronted
and
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-20076
where he doesn’t answer the confrontation
-no radiation measured see: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/TEST%20BO%20BIANCHINI%20RELAZ.pdf
Tu sum up: To believe this is a real CF is like to believe a convicted fraudster, babbling unintelligible physical bizzarities and making epochal unsubstantiated claims he later contradicts…that he invented brand new physical phenomenas to save the mankind while atracting potential investors, although he avoids any real independent peer-review.
Much like the AGW fraudsters – falsify the data which then become missing, making black-box simulations and epochal catastrophic predictions, then draw loads of money from public resources, claiming they’re saving the mankind, but avoiding independent reviews and trying to marginalize and silence the oponents.
I too worry about the content of many reports–one from Fox News had the unit generating electricity, when it is well known they were measuring the energy output by turning ambient water into steam. (Maybe the reporter got as far as the electrical plug and thought they were selling electricity to the local utility?)
Another comment the reporter made was that the researchers said they rejected the need for data. I’m not sure what they’re referring to–they had a variety of measuring devices recording numbers to get efficiencies and other characteristics of the demonstration.
The report goes on to say “exactly zero of the previous claims of successful cold fusion have proven legitimate”–I’m a bit aghast at that statement. Was the reporter relying on some MIT pronouncement from 22 years ago? Certainly this reporter hasn’t kept up with the science (but is that a big surprise to anybody considering what that guild typically says about AGW?)
The reporter gives himself plenty of room to laugh at this group, yet plenty of room to take it seriously. I suppose it’s just another case of “we report; you decide”.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough/?test=faces
I’ve decided Fox News can do a much better job of reporting.
tume says:
January 24, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Why are you expecting gamma rays and neutrons in cold fusion? Are you apply requirements of hot fusion processes to this?
I have to say a few things.
First, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.
Second, if they can repeat this, and prove to the world without a doubt that this is not a hoax, and it can scale up, and won’t require materials that are finite, then they may have something. Though, this could also be a bad this for the world …
Third, just because we have unlimited NRG (providing this works) does that mean we can all party like rock stars, and consume until we destroy what’s left of this planet?
I personally hope this is a hoax. Plus, I have to say, why now — it does not compute.
PS – I do not like oil companies or any fossil fuel people. If this discovery proves to be true, it will change a lot. Though we still need oil for plastics, and tones of stuff.
Several professors are assisting or counseling Rossi and his team in his efforts, and have been for many months. This reduces my suspicion about the genuineness of his device. Likewise, his claim to have actually provided space heating for a building is reassuring. I think there’s a good chance he’s actually got something.
Even if he’s making exaggerated claims about its power output, it should work much better than windmills–so good riddance to them!
Well, in theory it is simple as a wood wedge. It is a long known fact effective mass of electrons in some metals can be much larger than mass of free electrons due to collective effect of the matrix. One does not have to venture farther than to take this mass at face value. Mass difference between neutron and proton is 1.29 MeV while mass of free electrons is 0.51 MeV. As soon as the electron gets into an environment where its mass is increased by at least 0.78 MeV, an e*+p->n+neutrino transition becomes energetically favorable. The only thing we need at this point is an ample supply of protons, for example lots of hydrogen inside or in the close vicinity of the metallic lattice.
Let’s assume the probability of transition goes up sharply with any increase in effective electron mass beyond the break-even point like a resonance or something, therefore neutrons produced this way are extremely cold (the neutrino does not have much kinetic energy either, so energy carried away by it is negligible, it is below the 1 eV range). I don’t quite see yet how can they be colder than the original protons they are created from, but let’s put that caveat aside for the time being. It may be some coherent collective phenomenon like laser light which can also have a virtual temperature in the nK range (otherwise laser cooling would not work). Pumped systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium can sometimes do funny things.
Anyway, if we assume average speed of neutrons is some 3 cm/sec, that is, they are ULM (Ultra Low Momentum) neutrons, the spatial spread of their wave packet due to the uncertainty principle becomes more than a μm. In such a volume there are hundreds of million atoms of the metal, so if its nucleus is willing to absorb neutrons, it happens with an extremely high probability. Also, the neutrons being slow, it takes several seconds for them to cross the container, therefore there is no way for neutron radiation to escape from the reactor. Anyway, these ULM neutrons should be remarkably cold indeed, having a temperature around 40 nK (4×10^-8 K).
Of course the energy consumed in raising electron mass by 0.78 MeV should be resupplied, but it is supposed to be done by the electric current going through the device. The other thing to consider is what happens to the ultra slow neutrons. It obviously depends on the exact isotopic composition of the metal matrix. Neutrons can enter the nucleus with no Coulomb barrier whatsoever and if the isotopes are chosen carefully, the radioactive decay that follows can resupply much more energy than consumed in creating the neutrons in the first place. Also, if a careful job is done, no long half life unstable isotopes are left behind. One still wonders what happens to the occasional gamma photon, but it is said to be converted to heat in situ by “heavy electrons” perhaps.
Have I interpreted the Widom-Larsen Theory faithfully?
The creation of neutrons and the nuclear reactions that are initiated by them is decoupled in this theory, the first one being determined by the electrochemical properties of the underlying stuff while the second one by its nuclear properties. Therefore one can at least start designing proper systems based on these principles. If any of them works as advertised, remains to be seen.
Dear anna v, your comments would be welcome.
RockyRoad says: (January 24, 2011 at 5:03 pm)
(Maybe the reporter got as far as the electrical plug and thought they were selling electricity to the local utility?)
Great line, Rocky!
Berényi Péter :
January 24, 2011 at 6:33 pm .
A good summary.
Widom-Larsen is a model that can be tested experimentally. It sounds plausible.
another exposition
The important thing is to establish repeatability and consistency of the effect. The theory will follow.
I can’t get through the whole thread, but I caught this near the beginning…
Oil companies would become worthless overnight. OPEC would become NOPEC overnight. Incredibile upheaval. Apocalyptic, epic, biblical proportion upset to the status quo. I think there’d at least be a very serious attempt to keep a lid on that Pandora’s Box until they can figure out a way to ease the transition without throwing the world order into turmoil.
Such upheaval would not happen. First of all, companies collapse all the time without any biblical upheaval to the world order. The losses to all oil investors combined could not offset the economic gains to the globe from such a device. But more to the point, oil companies would not become worthless overnight. We use oil for transportation, not for electrical generation.
Let’s say this is real, and you can even build a unit to fit into and power a car at price and performance levels competitive with current vehicles. You’re looking at a good 15-20 years before the entire U.S. auto fleet can be replaced with fusion powered cars. I imagine those numbers are similar for any nation state with a substantial inventory of vehicles. You just can’t build all those cars overnight. The more you build, the more you drive down the cost of oil, the less incentive there is for remaining gas drivers to dump perfectly good vehicles before their time. Oil stocks would certainly take an initial hit, but the decline of the oil companies themselves would be much more gradual.
Let’s say this is real, but you can’t build a unit to fit in a car, for whatever reason. Now you have the electricity, but you still have the problem of finding a way to store it and use it in a vehicle. Neither battery technology nor hydrogen fuel cells are going to change because of this. We’re still 10-20 years from competitive implementations of either, after which we would be 15-20 years from replacing the entire auto fleet. You could be looking at a half century for this transition.
If this is real, if it is scalable, if it can be put into production and deployed quickly and safely, then the most immediate impact will be a shift in electrical production followed by higher standards of living thanks to lower energy costs for everything involving electricity. At some point it would impact the cost of transportation, but most likely not before we solve the battery or fuel cell problem, and then not until all the existing vehicles are replaced.
It would certainly be a shock to the oil industry, but it would be a glide down, not a true crash. (Investors in oil stocks might call it a crash, until someone wakes up and realizes that the world will still need oil for some time.) The long term consequences to nation states which depend on high oil prices for their standard of living, primarily those in the middle east, might be quite negative. But then again, if we don’t need oil from that region any more, we don’t really need to concern ourselves with their unrest and wars. If they want help in making a peaceful transition for their economies, fine, we can help. If they don’t want to play it smart and use their existing wealth and the transition period to transform their economies, then fine, suffer the consequences. We certainly won’t need to be there or care any more.
And from the tail end of the comments…
Third, just because we have unlimited NRG (providing this works) does that mean we can all party like rock stars, and consume until we destroy what’s left of this planet?
We do not “consume” in the manner you are using the word, nor are we capable of destroying this planet, which isn’t “what’s left” of some mythical prehistorical world, but is in fact substantially the same as it was before man.
We use energy to manipulate matter to our purposes. That matter is not “consumed”, “used up”, or “destroyed.” We are not consuming the planet, nor are we capable of doing so, because we cannot create or destroy matter. We can, at most, convert relatively tiny amounts of it to energy.
In some cases it might be more difficult to recover and re-purpose some matter after it is no longer being used for its initial purpose. But when you have virtually unlimited and low cost energy supplies, just about anything becomes possible on the recycling end. I don’t for a second buy AGW theory, but with sufficient energy supplies we could simply scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, break it into carbon and oxygen, release the oxygen and bury the carbon as liquid hydrocarbons again. Even the great environmentalist bogeyman of carbon means little when you have enough energy to reshape the world.
I personally hope this is a hoax. Plus, I have to say, why now — it does not compute.
This is probably a hoax. But hoping it is a hoax demonstrates a rather twisted view of things. If true this could be one of the greatest discoveries of man, a change which could be used to radically improve the living standards for all humans. It would also dramatically reduce the negative side effects of human energy production, and leave humans with more time to attend to environmental quality issues. (Hopefully real ones, in a rational and measured manner, as opposed to the hysterics we often witness in regard to fantasy issues.) Wealthy people care about blue skies, clean water, and beautiful land. Poor people care about survival at any cost. And energy, for all intents and purposes, is wealth.
I think it’s a hoax. I pray to God that it’s real.
anna v says:
January 24, 2011 at 11:42 pm
A very helpful post Anna. Widom-Larsen removes the Coulomb barrier problem, and seems to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Why has this not hit the news before? (probably too busy with CAGW scare stories). Not cold fusion but exothermic cold neutron transmutation – a reasonable description? I am becoming less sceptical.
Will WUWT continue this thread when it drops off the bottom of the page? (in a way I hope not – I have wasted too much time already!)
anna v says:
January 24, 2011 at 11:42 pm
The important thing is to establish repeatability and consistency of the effect. The theory will follow.
I hope so. If it turns out to be true, it’s a real game changer. The thing has consequences far beyond affordable, clean & unlimited energy. I think I would have to re-assemble my entire world view.
There are two papers by Widom & Larsen at arXiv.org covering the two most important points which required vague hand-waving in the exposition.
arXiv.org > nucl-th > arXiv:nucl-th/0608059
[v1] Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:02:42 GMT (16kb)
[v2] Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:54:41 GMT (27kb)
Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces
A. Widom & L. Larsen
arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:cond-mat/0509269
[v1] Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:15:30 GMT (10kb)
Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces
A. Widom & L. Larsen
I wonder why these are not published in a mainstream condensed matter / nuclear physics journal. At least one of them, Dr. Allan Widom looks like a well established guy in Academia. I can smell no obvious crackpot flavor in them either, but again, I am not an expert in either condensed matter or nuclear physics. I do have the basics and have the capacity to slowly go through the stuff, but I am far from being done [any sane comments are welcome].
If it turns out they make sense after all, a most thorough audit of the entire scientific publication process is warranted. Anonymous peer review, as it is practiced now is apparently not doing the job it is supposed to do. It suppresses innovation, promotes political interference while failing to filter out most worthless crap. It is this way in medical sciences, now physics and only God knows how many other fields (climate science included for sure). Grant system financed by taxpayers’ money is another suspect. However, business is also alien to science.
Western style civilization (the most successful pattern in history by far) is based on a delicate balance between three spheres of human endeavor: science, business & politics. Ideally they should be kept independent of each other as much as possible while maintaining permeable standard interfaces between them. As soon as the connection between any two spheres above gets convoluted enough, efficiency of either one drops sharply. To set up proper checks & balances that may work well under current circumstances is a real challenge.
If it is true hard gamma rays can be stopped in 2 nm by a surface layer of some H loaded metals with a continuous resupply of free energy (as opposed to 10 cm of lead, that is, an improvement by a factor of fifty million), it is revolutionary in itself. Using the effect ultra light radiation shields could be constructed (making for example control over proliferation of hand held nuclear weapons much more difficult).
Also, I see wavelength of ultra cold neutrons is claimed to go up to 30 μm. It would imply an average speed of 1 mm/sec and a neutron fluid temperature not much above 100 pK. Thrilling.
If the weak interaction can be controlled as it is claimed, it can become the work horse of technology in more than one way, most of them unforeseeable at the moment, as it has already happened to electromagnetic forces.
One can’t help but consider the consequences of this track to biology as well. I just wonder if low energy neutron “chemistry” is as accessible as claimed, why living creatures need solar radiation or organic foodstuff to survive? Was evolution not smart enough to invent a molecular device analogous to chloroplasts or mitochondria that would use nuclear transmutation to supply the free energy needed to replicate? Or is there some inherent hidden obstacle there?
Of course I am aware of Kevran’s work, who won the Ig Nobel prize in 1993 for his achievements, but one would think if this huge energy tank is tapped by life indeed, it would be much more visible in everyday life.
After all the effect is said to be dependent on the nanoscale structure of surfaces and life is at its best in producing molecularly precise nanostructures (and supplying them with free energy as needed).
Also, if it is that easy to create a subsystem with temperatures in the nK range, it is conceivable the brain can also do the trick in another context, making biological quantum computing a viable hypothesis.
The guys there also say some (or most) of the heavy elements are not created in supernovas as it is taught by mainstream astrophysics, but by other processes relying on this new weak force chemistry. For example solar flares (and ball lightning, perhaps?) can have a local energy supply of this kind.
Also, for energy generation the proposed Lithium cycle looks like an especially smart choice.
6Li+n->7Li+energy
7Li+n->8Li+energy
8Li->8Be+e+ν (beta decay, halflife 838 msec)
8Be->2×4He+energy
4He+n->5He+energy
5He+n->6He+energy
6He->6Li+e+ν (beta decay, halflife 806.7 msec)
That is, Lithium is regenerated in the cycle, it is only used as a catalytic agent (so its price does not matter much). The net reaction is to convert four protons into a stable 4He nucleus while getting a pair of electrons (just enough to neutralize helium ions) and neutrinos as a byproduct. And of course much energy. No radioactive isotopes with a halflife longer than a second are produced. If gamma rays are readily converted into heat, there is no radiation other than beta rays, and only during operation. That’s entirely manageable.
It is the next best thing save a perpetual motion machine. If only it could be made to work, plain old water would serve as the default fuel. If peak water is ever reached, some comet stuff can always be imported to replace it 🙂
Going commercial, does that mean, bilking investors?
Berényi Péter :
Awsome thoughts – and I am not being sarcastic!
My only comment on biological systems not developing cold neutron chemistry is that the effect seems to require a large electric current through the nano-particles in order to generate very large surface electric fields. However, in a galaxy far, far away….
I am starting to think that this is either the best thing since sliced bread, or the biggest scam since CAGW!
RockyRoad says:
January 24, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Focardi et al http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004CampariEGoverviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf apparently had γ and n in some of their tests measured. If there is the e+/e- reaction proposed than one would expect γ at certain keV’s.
But what I was mainly wondering about Rossi answers was that in July 2010 he answered like: “Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.”
And later now, when asked, he doesn’t confirm his own – if we consider what would “mean 30% Cu” “integrally bound to the amount of energy produced” “out of pure Ni” – quite an epochal one statement.
What happened to the mass spectrometer analysis? Why they didn’t take samples and didn’t send it for analysis to independent labs? In scientifical sense if others would confirm 30+% Cu, it would be much more groundbreaking than the demonstrations of the “black box” (actually blue), which just raises the suspicion among the skeptics. Which one can’t wonder, because the scientific method is indeed based on falsification – the science vitally needs the skeptics.
I don’t say surely this whole thing is a fraud, but certainly it much looks like. The Rossi if nothing else behaves like unwise marketer, not honest researcher.
There is the nice Rothwell article: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf
anna v says: Widom-Larsen is a model that can be tested experimentally. It sounds plausible.
Reading the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0608059 I do have a problem with the model. It is apparent that if the mass of lattice electrons is raised sufficiently by a strong field, then they will interact with protons to form virtual neutrons, that in turn could interact with suitable nuclei. So long as the energy deficiency is duly made up by some energy source (perhaps an electric current), this is a plausible mechanism for LENRs. However, the authors seem simply to assume that the neutrons have very low momenta (that is, have a very low temperature); they do not prove it, or even suggest how this could be. Since the protons have a thermal distribution of energies (at ~300K or higher) , as probably the heavy electrons do also (though I suppose I could believe that they were in some sort of cold Bose condensation), the resulting neutrons should have a similar distribution of energies. The thermal entropy of the protons can’t just vanish; it must appear in the reaction products. One might argue that it is somehow transferred to the lattice instead, but that could only happen with some rather clever pumping by the primary energy source (like a laser).
Berényi Péter :
January 25, 2011 at 6:27 am
We have a Greek proverb :”where you hear of many cherries take a small basket”.
In english they say “hold your horses”
I want to see experimental verification of this model.
Here is an experiment to check if a cold neutron exists under the conditions stated
for e- + p+ -> neutron + neutrino :
make a thin film of the stuff, in this case Nickel hydride , and check for neutron decay.
Thin so the beta can get out of the metal.
Going back to the original subject, in any case we do not have long to wait, since they seem to be going commercial. It will either fizzle out or be true, and in the latter case a lot of nuclear theorists and experimentalists will fall on the problem.
anna v says:
“Here is an experiment to check if a cold neutron exists under the conditions stated
for e- + p+ -> neutron + neutrino :
make a thin film of the stuff, in this case Nickel hydride , and check for neutron decay.”
You won’t see neutron decay unless you’re adding the necessary energy; in the absence of a continuing energy input the neutrons can only be virtual. Unless I’ve misunderstood the mechanism.
Paul Birch :
January 25, 2011 at 9:41 am
They talk of very cold neutrons trapped in the crystal, and of collective modes, but a neutron decays if it is allowed energetically.
ULM neutrons’ huge size is exactly why biologically dangerous energetic (‘hot’) neutrons are not released by LENR systems. ULM neutrons are extraordinarily ‘cold’ to begin with; and virtually all are absorbed locally; they never get a chance to escape and go anywhere. It is the first reason why LENRs are safe and environmentally friendly in comparison with heavy element neutron-triggered fission and light element hot fusion.
Don’t sound very virtual, just cold.
Well, one thing is for sure, this post will generate lots of hits on WUWT.
Thank you for an interesting post, and thanks for many interesting comments, folks!
So, as I understand it, we will know the answer on many questions during 2011.
Is it just a battery in the box? Or is something new and interesting really going on?
I cannot understand the motivation behind this being a fraud. A certain path to disaster for Dr. Rossi et.al. if you ask me.
All the arguments based on “since this and that doesnt match what I know about nuclear physics” is really not of much interest in my opinion. We must wait and see what unfolds. Exciting times!
anna v says:
January 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
“They talk of very cold neutrons trapped in the crystal, and of collective modes, but a neutron decays if it is allowed energetically.
…
Don’t sound very virtual, just cold.”
OK, but that’s what doesn’t seem quite right about the model. The neutrons should be virtual (because the starting point is a ground state of the lattice), and they shouldn’t be cold (because they’re made from warm protons).
tume says:
January 25, 2011 at 8:22 am
I don’t put much stock into a player’s personal reputation–I base it on numerous other LENR experiments and results that indicate the process is real. It works. It is there to figure out, make a useful product, and benefit mankind.